Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

 

The report presented the Cambridgeshire County and Peterborough City Councils, Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Preliminary Draft (MWLP) for approval.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

 

Resolved: To agree the response to the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Preliminary Draft Consultation (as amended)  that was consistent with the views set out in the report, and further agreed that officers may submit the final response online via the County Council’s website.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Planning Policy Manager, Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council.

 

Member of the Committee were advised it had been the intention to submit the joint response to the consultation after the meeting, with South Cambridgeshire’s District Council’s formal decision to be submitted after its Cabinet meeting on 28 June.

 

However, responses could not be changed after the close of midnight, 26 June, so South Cambridgeshire District Council had made an urgent Portfolio Holder decision on 25 June.

 

This reflected the proposed joint response and had added an additional sentence before the last sentence of what was paragraph 3.8 of the report to Cambridge Planning and Transport Committee, to read (additional text underlined):

 

The Councils would like to understand in more detail the issues affecting delivery at Block Fen/Langwood Fen and the potential implications for other areas. The consultation document talks of there having been questions raised around deliverability of the allocation and that progress has been slow `partly' due to the economy, but it is not clear whether there is substance to those questions and what the probability is of failure.

 

It was recommended that the additional text be included in the response which was carried nem com.

 

The Planning Policy Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        Noted the Committee’s agreement, as outlined in the Officer’s report, which all councils were supportive of an approach to investigate the provision of permanent waste management facilities within new settlements or growth sites in principle, subject to achieving a suitable balance between competing land uses as outlined in the officer’s report.

    ii.        These waste facilities would be determined on a location by location basis, with officers’ considering if the relocation of waste recycling facilities to the area would be better used for employment facilities or vice a versa.

   iii.        The adopted plan for the Northstowe development had identified one of the general employment areas as a relocation of waste recycling facilities location. This had been secured through a phase 1 application which had set a marker for future growth sites.

  iv.        With regards to the relocation of the Cambridge Water Recycling Centre (WRC); the plan did not offer a potential location for a new WRC facility but recognised the need for the relocation.

   v.        A decision on housing infrastructure funding for the Cambridge Northern Fringe East Development had been put back due to Central Government arrangements. It was likely that a decision would not be reached until February 2019.  The detailed work of developing the feasibility study for the  relocation of the WRC was dependent on the funding. But work was being undertaken in the first instance to bring forward the business case for funding and the master plan for the site; relevant markers were also being put in place in the MWLP.

  vi.        Not possible to state if the waste reduction targets set by the European Union for 2020 had been taken into account when looking at future growth sites.

 vii.        Noted the comments regarding the waste collection programme for the new Eddington development (North West Cambridge); but the focus on the document was more on the strategic strategy and the specific allocation for household recycling centres rather than collection from individual development.

viii.        Understood the impact the A14 upgrade was having in and around Cambridge, particularly for residents on Histon and Milton Road when being used by heavy good vehicles. But this was should be covered by a transport strategy which had a wider scope for conditions that could be placed on these vehicles.

 

The Executive Councillor said the following:

     i.        This was the first stage of the process and there would be further opportunities to review the document.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the amended recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the amended recommendation